21

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Star Wars: Episode VII (cast list released!)

« on: December 18, 2015, 09:31:10 PM »

This character is dreadful. Boring even. There isn't anything about him. He is just loyal and trustworthy and a good egg. He's not even a very good actor. It doesn't seem as though the leading lady would find anything remotely interesting in him. She just met him. He didn't do anything to pique her interest. There isn't any mystery to him. He's 2d and wooden. He hasn't any skills ... he can't talk his way out of anything like solo, he can't fly like a god like Po Dameron, he doesn't know the odds of anything like C3PO, he can't use the force like a jedi, he isn't a renowned trader like jabba, he isn't the best bounty hunter like Fett, he's a very ordinary storm trooper ... but for having PC qualities like loyalty and bravery ... things you'd expect any starwars rebellion hero to have anyway.

So he's Luke Skywalker circa ANH?

So, he's a shit character, how does the fact that he's black change that? Would a white guy reading the same script be somehow better?

Pretty much this. I've not seen the film yet but there has been no end of praise given to Boyega and Ridley's performances. Similarly, most people have expressed excitement at following these characters through 2 more films. I never understood why people gave a shit that a character is black.

22

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: "Assault" weapons, for it or against it?

« on: December 18, 2015, 09:27:50 PM »

After that, the USA brigade quotes the second amendment and reminds everyone that repealing an amendment is borderline impossible.

That shouldn't really matter in this discussion, though. If the question is 'are guns bad and should we get rid of them?' the fact that passing the law to do it would be difficult is irrelevant.

Similarly, in a discussion about whether it would be better to get rid of the monarchy or not, arguing that the majority of MPs would never vote to do so is an irrelevant distraction.

Even if the 2nd amendment was repealed tomorrow, gun buybacks were enacted and heavy restrictions legislated, there are simply far too many weapons in the US to ever see any drastic improvement in gun deaths. As if it needs to be said, most gun violence is not performed by legal owners.

Gun legislation worked well for Australia because we only had very few weapons to begin with, and no 'right to bear arms' embedded in the national ego. People with SLR's and AR-15's thought "yeah maybe I don't need weapons like these" and happily handed them over to the government. That would never happen in the US.

I don't know what the best action is for the US, but it's not hard to see that strict regulation and buybacks are folly. The latest shooting itself was performed with legally obtained AR-15's wasn't it?

23

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: "Assault" weapons, for it or against it?

« on: December 18, 2015, 03:54:13 AM »

Which is why nearly all military studies consider the attack on Pearl Harbor to be one of the dumbest strategic moves ever committed by a modern nation.

They were kind of forced into doing it. Japan had few options left at that stage.

24

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Star Wars: Episode VII (cast list released!)

« on: December 18, 2015, 03:52:31 AM »

An epic story where Jedis are downtrodden and forgotten, then one newbie rises up to defeat the Evil Empire (This time he's black, folks!) In theaters December 16!

I have now seen starwars.


Warning ... incoming spoiler.

The film was good, but Disney had to go down the interracial relationship route. There isn't a single eligible white guy in the universe. Only a black guy is virtuous and loyal and would stand up to the empire and is worth the leading lady's attention. Fuck Disney.

Because Po Dameron isn't a character.

There's like 1 black dude in the main cast, calm your shit.

25

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: ISIS and the Middle East

« on: December 13, 2015, 10:54:47 PM »

Russian Fellatio: The Thread.

26

Arts & Entertainment / Re: First Look at Ben Affleck's Batman

« on: December 03, 2015, 01:54:20 PM »

So it's basically the leaked script. This could be one hell of a messy movie.

27

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: ISIS and the Middle East

« on: November 27, 2015, 11:50:33 AM »

There's nothing terribly amazing about an EW truck. You don't need magical technology to feed false information to an AWACS, or flat out fire as much noise as you can at it. In a real conflict, a truck with a big dish on the back is the last place you'd want to be. Anything with a big dish is also a big target, regardless of how effective it may be at blinding enemy aircraft.

This relatively small container in the shape of a torpedo is mounted on the wingtips of the aircraft and makes the sky machines invulnerable to all modern means of defence and enemy fighters. After the crew receives missile attack alert, Khibiny comes into action and covers the fighter with radio-electronic protective hood, which prevents the missile from reaching the target and makes it deviate from the course. Khibiny increases the survivability of the aircraft by 25-30 times.

Western nations have had EW pods for a long time as well. They're not a magic bullet that grant you invulnerability. They also don't do jack shit against IR guided missiles.

28

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Just Watched

« on: November 27, 2015, 09:16:38 AM »

Jessica Jones wasn't as good as Daredevil.

29

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: ISIS and the Middle East

« on: November 27, 2015, 09:15:35 AM »

Turkey uses conventional Western technology; compared to the Russians, they are nowhere near the scalar radar wave discoveries made in the former USSR.

Compared to the Russians, who still use PESA radar systems in their cutting edge fighters. It's commonly held that Russian radar systems are inferior to what the west put out.

To understand what is going on we must go back to the Tunguska explosion.

The Soviets understood very fast that it could not have been caused by either a comet, or an asteroid, or a meteorite; moreover, they calculated the trajectory of the fireball to the very mile, no natural object is capable of achieving such a deliberately modified orbit.

And they found out about Tesla's lab and the new laws of physics he was establishing at the time, based on scalar waves (scalar wave = subquark wave/string).

Right, should've expected this from you.

Here is what a Su-24 equipped with scalar radar technology can do:

https://futuristrendcast.wordpress.com/2014/11/19/what-frightened-the-uss-donald-cook-so-much-in-the-black-sea/

It can fly within a few thousand feet of a US destroyer? Oh no.

30

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: ISIS and the Middle East

« on: November 25, 2015, 08:10:33 AM »

“Disregarding these warnings, both planes, at an altitude of 19,000 feet, violated Turkish national airspace to a depth of 1.36 miles and 1.15 miles in length for 17 seconds from 9:24:05 local time."

Disregarding that a Su-24 has a top speed of some 1300 km/hr, why would the Russians send in such an aircraft knowing that it has no chance against a F-16?

Turkey's F-16C/D's are entirely capable of taking down any Russian fighter currently stationed in Syria or anywhere else.

Why not send in a Su-30, or a Su-34, which could have taken down immediately both F-16 fighter planes?

Because the mission wasn't to take down Turkish F-16's within their own airspace. That would be incredibly stupid and entirely pointless.

Some journalists said that the Russians wanted to see how far they can push Turkey, and that now they found out. But it doesn't work like that. The Russians knew very well from the very start of their operations in Syria that such an incident might arise, which makes even more strange the decision to send in a Su-24 instead of the much more powerful aircrafts which the Turkish military would have never dared to attack in the first place.

Do you really think the Turkish Air Force is going to shrink from a scary air superiority fighter entering their air space? It's their skies, they can and will exercise whatever force they deem necessary, and they're more than equipped to handle any aircraft in Russian inventory.

31

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Star Wars: Episode VII (cast list released!)

« on: October 23, 2015, 10:08:04 PM »

Rushy, in all of his insight, manages to discern similarities between Ep 4 and Ep 7. You truly are a God among men.

32

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Star Wars Battlefront™

« on: October 12, 2015, 03:24:25 AM »

Strange that a beta is missing features. Hmm.

I was referring to content that DICE confirmed would not be in the game, like the clones/droids as factions.

Anyone played the beta?

All in all I feel it's a notable step down from the earlier games. Not only because of the missing features that we already knew about, but the gun play, maps and customisation systems are all pretty lackluster. The only real praise I've seen is that it nails the Star Wars atmosphere, which I agree with.

While you've failed spectacularly, I think Battlefront has done the opposite and not only completely outdone the older games, but captured quintessential Star Wars perfectly.

>"quintessential Star Wars"
>No space battles

ok

33

Arts & Entertainment / Star Wars Battlefront™

« on: October 11, 2015, 10:05:41 PM »

Anyone played the beta?

All in all I feel it's a notable step down from the earlier games. Not only because of the missing features that we already knew about, but the gun play, maps and customisation systems are all pretty lackluster. The only real praise I've seen is that it nails the Star Wars atmosphere, which I agree with.

34

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Liberal Party leadership spill (aka the end of Abbott)

« on: September 15, 2015, 03:12:16 AM »

I actually like Abbott. His stance on immigration is sensible for example ... it isn't all about liberalism and ignoring financial reality.

Both major parties are in agreement in regards to asylum seekers. Only the smaller parties maintain more liberal stances. The outcry to take in more Syrian refugees was consistent across the country, with Tony agreeing to a number of 12,000.

In any case, asylum seekers are a drop in the population bucket. Our population is increasing much faster than other first world nations mostly due to 100% legal immigrants. That's what needs to be addressed, not a few thousand boat people every year.

With Turnbull in charge and Bishop as #2, things are about to get very interesting.

35

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Invest in the Military

« on: August 12, 2015, 05:56:38 AM »

Well trench warfare dominated the Western Front, but the real defining characteristic of WWI was that the weapons they were using had never really been used in large-scale warfare between major powers before, so the old strategies were obsolete, and that the nations involved were powerful enough that only what essentially amounts to total annihilation could cause one to surrender. I think a modern world war would be similar, if there were no nukes involved. I doubt there'd be many trenches, but it would be drawn out and bloody and everyone involved would be totally devastated. I think the issues of expense wouldn't be enough to end it quickly unless one side was losing everything and the other side wasn't, which seems kind of unlikely (although the US would probably have a pretty big technological advantage, so who knows).

I just can't see that happening with the way modern militaries are equipped and trained. As we've both said, WWI essentially came down to a war of attrition. That hypothetical placed in the context of a modern conflict would be significantly hampered by the reliance on highly expensive hardware, in the hands of trained soldiers. Then there's the proliferation of precision weaponry.

The small scale conflicts currently going on emphasize a standstill, mostly on part of the factions fighting them lacking the training, manpower and hardware to make substantial territory changes. It's certainly possible that modern conflict could devolve into this given enough time, but just don't see it lasting that long. And yes, I know everyone said that about every major conflict in the 20th century.

36

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Invest in the Military

« on: August 12, 2015, 01:17:25 AM »

Isn't ridiculously powerful private armies one of the big reasons the Roman Republic turned into a dictatorship?

I'm personally in favor of dramatically reducing the size of the US military, by any arbitrary percent, but this is a stupid and dangerous way to do it. NGOs should not have militaries.

The way I see it, the world powers are already incapable, and unwilling, engage in direct armed conflict with each other. We proved that in the cold war. At best it would be a repeat of the first world war, at worst it would be nuclear armageddon. With that in mind it seems like folly to maintain early 20th century standing armies. We're never going to use them for anything more than small-scale engagements and military occupations (i.e. Russia in Ukraine, China in Tibet, the US in Iraq), but our militaries are based on the idea of an impossible conflict between the giants. It's silly and paranoid.

Western nations are downsizing their militaries quite a bit, and the overall size is already tiny compared to WWII numbers; the USAAF had in excess of 50,000 aircraft relative to today's 5,000. The F-35 and LCS are good examples of this new cost saving mentality; mission versatility and interoperability built in to an already cheap platform, which then replaces the bigger and purpose built platforms of old.

There's also been plenty of news stories published in recent months regarding the capability of individual forces within NATO (i.e the Bundeswehr training with broomsticks instead of rifles, Luftwaffe Typhoon's not being ready, etc). Russia, too, has shown its lack of readiness in the consistent aircraft hull losses driven by a heightened state of readiness brought on by the Ukraine crisis. There just isn't the military spending that there used to be, and it shows.

I also disagree that a conflict similar to WWI would ever take place again. What distinguished WWI was trench warfare, which was largely dictated by the immobile nature of warfare at that time and the superiority of defensive tools like the machine gun. Modern technology means an entirely different battlefield if such large scale combat were to take place again. I wouldn't be surprised if conflict between nation states fizzled out quickly on account of quick losses in expensive hardware, such as aircraft or ships. It's all well and good for rebels to blow up a few old T-72's in disparate regional conflicts, but how many T-90 losses could Russia stomach? How many F-16's could the US stand to lose?

Finally, conflict between the big boys doesn't necessarily mean Armageddon. From memory, Russia always planned the use of tactical nuclear strikes in the case of hypothetical conflict with NATO. I doubt such an attack would spark global nuclear warfare. MAD just means nation states are unlikely to nuke each other, not that they won't enter conflict at all.

37

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Just Watched

« on: August 11, 2015, 01:05:11 AM »

That's the message you took away from the first one? I'm struggling to get something even close to that out of it. I haven't seen the second season at all yet, so I can't really comment there.

On that note, is it worth watching?

38

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Fox News Republican candidate debates

« on: August 09, 2015, 09:05:44 AM »

I like how more choices means less. Good old first past the post.

39

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Game of Thrones

« on: August 02, 2015, 05:59:25 AM »

Once again, if Jon is dead then so is the series. Martin isn't that shit of a writer.

40

Technology & Information / Re: The Windows 10 thread

« on: August 01, 2015, 09:15:01 AM »

Renamed IE.